Posted on 06/01/2005 4:08:07 PM PDT by Republicanprofessor
Pointillism, and it's not entirely suprising that it should appeal to an engineer - Georges Seurat, the most famous pointillist, spent a good deal of time studying the (then new) science of color theory and perception. Seurat's best known work is his A Sunday on La Grande Jatte (1884):
Of course, this hardly does justice to the painting - the original is 8 feet by 10 feet and took him two years to complete. It's on display at the Art Institute of Chicago, next time you're in town ;)
Squinting helps me realize how good some of these paintings actually are. I have enjoyed reading some of the articles speculating about the vision problems of famous artists.
LOL. Hubby is a scientist, and you sound like him. My guess is that it's nature and training. BTW, Hubby really likes pointillism too.
I was pointing out a few posts back, forgive the pun, that artists who map out areas of color and value for pointilism (or other broken color paintings) do it by squinting, which allows them to see color and value as basic shapes instead of detail. It gives them a mental map, or diagram, in other words.
Artists who paint realism do the same thing, for that matter.
Robert Hughes, Time magazine's art critic and author of many books of his own including Shock of the New and American Visions, both of which I HIGHLY recommend for art, had an interesting idea about flatness. He noted the influence of the Eiffel Tower, built 1889. The view from the top of the Eiffel Tower was revolutionary and showed a very flattened world, one with a view completely different from traditional Renaissance perspective.
Yeah, I agree with your provocative comment about the spirituality of modern art, though I'm pretty sure I'd like to exclude plenty of it from that characterization.
I, too, would drop many modern artists from my spiritual characterization, but the good ones are spiritual. Actually, I think many "modern" artists (from, say, 1900-1960) were often spiritual. It's the postmodern and "contemporary" artists after 1960 who are purposely not spiritual, and often, I think, their work is empty and souless. I'll have more to say about these guys later on.
My husband and I spent last December an afternoon there. He is not much of an art lover and would only look at the collections from the later periods, however he spent the rest of the afternoon out on the grounds enjoying the gardens, view and buildings. Me, I went through the whole compound, awestruck. The collection seems to have an emphasis on very old (1400) art.
At the time we were there, a photography exhibit was in residence. I thought I wouldn't like it as the images were from 30 years ago but I was so taken with the people and compositions I spent far longer in there than I thought I would. Art always surprises.
Also amazing is that the museum is free. With three restaurants and food available on the courtyards. Next time we head down there we are planning to have a meal after viewing.
It wasn't as large as I thought it would be...but it is breathtaking once you arrive off the tram. The views to the Pacific are unbelievable. (Sorry for so many adjectives!)
Good questions. I'll bet many don't know about them. The Ashcan Artists were American artists who worked about 1900-1910 or so. They were often newspaper illustrators who reflected the seamier side of life (in contrast to the more elegant and upper class American Impressionists). You could even say they reflected the influx of immigrants of the time. There were led by Robert Henri, who had studied in Germany and used rather dark colors. John Sloan painted pigeons and the NY El. Lawson used somewhat brigher blues.
Here is a landscape by Henri and a portrait by him.
John Sloan's Hairdresser's Window is below. Not a great image of it, but you get the idea.
My previous comment are about the Getty in LA oops
I read Robert Henri's "The Art Spirit" in the last year, liked it quite a bit.
I haven't been that fond of his portraits, I guess I like them OK, but the subjects look to me as if they'd fallen into a rouge pot. OTOH, the landscapes, which I'm seeing for the first time on this thread, are wonderful.
Thank you! Are you offering credit for your courses?! I am learning a lot.
Can you devote a lesson to watercolorists sometime?
Those are probably the ones I'm thinking of. It's probably no coincidence that when I was in art school in the late 60's, they were being very careful to avoid teaching much of anything. This attitude still persists, but seems to be lessening.
I sometimes wonder if I would have left art all these years if I had actually been taught how to see and draw when I was an art major. After graduating from college, I had decided that nobody actually knew how to teach such things - I figured that artists who actually had control of their work must have learned it on their own. I know now that that is not the case.
Meanwhile, though, I'm having a fun time returning to it later in life.
I gathered that you were talking about the Getty. It seems awesome. Hope I can get there soon.
I like the connection to engineers. I'll have to see if my engineer friends like it better than other, more loose forms of art.
You're ahead of me; I've only read segments of "The Art Spirit." And I agree about the portraits; that's a great comment about the rouge pot. Those portraits are just way too dark for my taste.
I am thinking about developing an on-line course for credit, but it would be a great deal more intense than this. But it would be fun and a great deal of people could take part. I'll let you know if it happens.
I'm thrilled about all you are learning. The really great thing is that you can now google up any of these artists or "schools" of artists to learn even more.
Watercolor is not my specialty. The comments made (by others) in "class" #1 about Homer were great. Another American 20th century watercolorist is Charles Demuth. Some still wonder at his technique. Here's a still life by Demuth, probably from teh 1920s or 1930s.
Me, I prefer pastels. It seems that artists work well with wet or with dry media, but rarely both.
Could be. Seurat, as I recall, was very much into what he referred to as his "method" - that is, painting was less of a spontaneous emotional expression for him than a process of composition via a set of rules designed to communicate with the viewer in a sort of "language". And he's often classed as a "Neoimpressionist" to distinguish him in this respect from Postimpressionists like Gauguin or van Gogh, for whom painting was very much an emotional expression. The fact that Seurat's works wind up being quite emotive in their own right is surely a testament to both his method and his ability. Often imitated as a pointillist, but certainly never duplicated, IMO.
Well, my fairly minimal education in art history was so long ago, I've forgotten most of it. I'm gradually reaquiring it, though.
I like that! How he rendered the peach - definitely cool!
I like pastels but don't feel like I am as competent with them. And, they can be hard on your fingers until the callouses form.
We are kindred souls.
"Luncheon" was my screen saver at work.
This piece is amazing.
I think impressionists appeal mostly to women because of the feminine style of painting - color, mystery, warmth, romantic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.